News flash, dearest parents. Controlling everything that your child does is not good parenting. Yes, the kids will mess up every now and then. So do we all. If you impose a lot of rules, monitor every little thing that your child does, then all they will do is find a way around whatever blocks / rules you have in place. They have a LOT of energy, and endless free time.

tl:dr - Being a good parent does not mean monitoring every little action.

Exactly. Heck, strict parenting has your kids go wild later in life. The people who control their kids lives in middle and high school either have a massive rebellion in high school, or if they put them in the college that the kid doesn't want to go to, they will rebel later in life.

If you don't let your kids do little things (watch R rated movies, hang out with friends, read what they want to, etc.) and then whenever they do realize that those things aren't really harmful, they will question your judgment on things that are harmful, such as drinking and driving.

When parents cry wolf at every little silly harmless "moral panic" they lose credibility with their kids.

Being a fairly new parent (17 months), I think there is a balance. I believe a responsible parent needs to be involved and sometimes that means observing or monitoring. That is different than controlling. A tool like this could be helpful if used wisely.

From my recent life - my daughter learned how to climb onto the couch. The first thing she did after that was to leap off headfirst. Mommy was there to catch her and that became a great game. Next phase was pillows on the floor and letting her learn a

That is exactly what I said - we stopped catching her; we provided a safe environment into which she could fall. Result is she learned how to get off the couch on her own without any spilled blood. It is not necessary to learn every lesson at the school of hard knocks. A good parent is actively engaged, dynamically balancing protecting their kids and allowing them to grow and learn so they can take care of themselves.

Well said. The knee-jerk reactions in here aside, parents have always tried and partially succeeded in controlling what their children see and hear. It is as much a part of parenting as feeding and clothing them. The electronic age took a huge chunk of control away from parents. Prior to wide availability of the internet, a child's exposure to such was limited to the occasional glimpse in a porn magazine, and what passed for risque on TV. When web sites started hitting wider audiences, early sites even had

A piece of advice, from an older parent to a new parent: you are not raising a child. You are raising an adult. You should spend your daughter's entire life as if you will drop dead when she turns 18. When you look at things from this perspective, things completely change. You are not protecting your child from the world; you are preparing them for it. They can handle a lot more than you think they can - including falling off a couch.

On one hand let's take my parents: They never told me i cant do anything, just warned me of the concicuances, like alcohol, when i was 16 my parents sat me down and told me how to drink, and whant no to mix and how to party. THey ASKED me not do do drugs and explaind why. My mom smokes and she said "You know what cigarettes are doing to me, smoke if you whant". --> I have never even tried to smoke or any drug what so ever. I only drink on parties and i only get buzzed.

On the other hand maney of my female frend's parents: They were 18 and they still had to be home by 10pm on Fridays (legal drinking age here is 18). So sinc the time they were 13 they would go out at 6pm, get Drunk, smoke and do drugs, than throw up and clean themselves up by 10pm to go home.

So if you think you can force a kid to do something your MORONIC and just plain dumme. The only way to make a child do something you whant for certain is convincing them it's the right thing to do and let them decide for themselves.

So parents: Warn your kids, then let them do what ever they whant and than help them pick up the peaces. After a while they'll lurn that your just looking out for them and they'll actually listen to you. Respect must be urned, not forced.

JUdging from the legal drinking age of 18, I'd guess this was written by a non-native english speaker, possibly with the help of a translator.

Which is just the sort of person this patent was designed for! Herbal v14gra! If more e-mails contained English, he'd speak it better! Hot sexy shemales! I learned all my English just my reading e-mails!

.........

When whenever they will mess up every little they're parents. Much of the maining judgement corner of the couch on her headfirst into a pile of cushions, head. The electronic age took a huge chucker! Prof Reed room to any managed their merits. Mommy was pile of advice, from and their child doesn't

On the other hand, lack of discipline is also troublesome. If a parent decides to praise the good with the bad, rather than just the good, doesn't this breed sociopaths? I hyperbolize, but sometimes it really is alright to say "that is not good... don't do that."

It is very difficult to define correct grammar, to start with. (Note false positive for preposition stranding)Moreover, spelling corrections may disrupt the vital Cupertino between parent and child. (Note Cupertino effect)Thus I would expect such controls to have no effect, once or ever. (eggcorn)Because of times when splitting the infinitive is required, I would never expect demand to more than double from where it is today.Should the passive voice be allowed?

If you impose a lot of rules, monitor every little thing that your child does, then all they will do is find a way around whatever blocks / rules you have in place...

The unintended consequence of this, and, dare I say, hidden advantage of it, is that such measures create generations of kids that are good at hacking their way out of oppressive measures whom have little respect for authority. In a world where governments seem to see their role, increasingly, as using any and all means (including technology) at their disposal to trample on human rights, this combination of skills and attitude will be a valuable weapon in the hands of the citizenry.

"He noticed that she never used Newspeak words except the ones that had passed into everyday use. She had never heard of the Brotherhood, and refused to believe in its existence. Any kind of organized revolt against the Party, which was bound to be a failure, struck her as stupid. The clever thing was to break the rules and stay alive all the same. He wondered vaguely how many others like her there might be in the younger generation people who had grown up in the world of the Revolution, knowing nothing else, accepting the Party as something unalterable, like the sky, not rebelling against its authority but simply evading it, as a rabbit dodges a dog."

It is never about controlling "everything". It's always a battle, trying to achieve balance. The technology increasing freedoms develops very fast, but technology that curbs them does not develop as fast: naturally children get more and more freedoms in obtaining the questionable material.

Good points. Being a good parent means not just teaching your kids how to act properly when they are unsupervised but also instilling the desire to do so.

The biggest problem I've seen with parents putting their kids' lives on rails is that when the kid is ever exposed to a new problem they have a hell of a time reasoning out the solution based on previous experience because they've never been allowed to fail.

You cannot tell if it's trolling just by reading one post of the user. Trolling is done by trolls - people who do trolling most of the time. I do not do that. It happens only when something is related to Islam, then my opinion will be of course quite contrary to yours as unbeliever.

As far as the post is concerned, I can assure you that I am sincere in my position, if that is what separates me from trolls.

Now that I know you were serious I know how to respond. I honestly don't know enough about Islam to comment in that area, but I do find the logic of your earlier comments somewhat lacking.

You cannot fail if you follow the taboo.

Sure you can. You can do everything right and still fail, sometimes you can even do everything wrong and still succeed. That is just part of life.

If you daughter does not put herself into a compromising position, she won't be in a compromising position with very rare exceptions of freaky accidents. If your son does not go to a drinking party, he won't get drunk at the drinking party.

This part made me dizzy, if someone doesn't do something they will not have done it? It reads like you've twisted what I said earlier into a doughnut. If someone's son doesn

In general I agree. But sending nude pictures of himself to some unknown party on the other end of a smartphone conversation is a kind of failure I am not willing to allow my son to make. The fact that you would disturbs me greatly.

I teach my kid to ride a bike safely. I still make him wear a helmet when he goes out. When he was younger, I taught him how to not burn himself on a hot kitchen stove. I still kept him out of the kitchen when I was cooking. You sound like a rather poor parent.

I've reread my comment and don't see where I said I would let my kids send naked pictures of themselves to anyone, I don't even see where I implied it. You say I sound like a poor parent but then again, you sound like a poor reader. You must have missed the first half of my post, the part where I said "being a good parent means not just teaching your kids how to act properly when they are unsupervised but also instilling the desire to do so".

Monitoring should not be equated with controlling. If you don't attempt to micro-manage your kids' lives, they'll have less motivation to conceal stuff from you. And that means that you'll be better-informed about your kids, their classmates and other buddies, and their activities (naughty as well as nice). You'll also be more likely to know when intervention is needed - before disaster strikes - and your advice is more likely to be heeded if it's given sparingly but clearly.

Also, believing the same parenting approach works with every kid is also bad parenting. Different kids require different degrees of supervision. With some, parents need to exercise significant control over their environment because the kids make such bad choices that left to their own they wouldn't survive to adulthood. I have a daughter who would not be alive today if we hadn't intervened and taken complete control of her life. Of course, she's not normal. In fact she suffers from a seriou

tl:dr - Being a good parent does not mean monitoring every little action.

While it's true that you can't (and shouldn't) monitor everything, I think there are instances where text messages are one of those things that should be monitored, only because of the severity of what could result... such as (possibly revealing) pictures of your kid being put on the internet where they will stay forever. But I'm not a parent, so I'm just supposing that if such an event could be prevented that it would be a very good thing.

Newsflash childless limp dicks: It's about moderation. I am not the parent of all the kids, just my kids. How other children are raised impacts my child. So how about we educate them., use moderation, and help them understand instead of just letting them go willy nilly?

I know my kids will find a way around. In some cases I know exactly how they will do it.

If you impose a lot of rules, monitor every little thing that your child does, then all they will do is find a way around whatever blocks / rules you have in place.

I saw a story on the local news a few weeks ago. This mother had been monitoring her daughters text message and call logs to see what she had been up to. Nothing suspicious ever came up. Then she learned of a service that the cell carrier provided that would let her log on and monitor the communications that had taken place with the account. She did that and found out that there had been lots of sexting going on among a half dozen or so of her friends. It turns out her daughter had been outwitting her all t

I wonder, what will the next great "moral panic" be? Quite honestly, I hope this is the last one, because every "moral panic" only harms the world, does nothing to benefit it and there was never any harm to begin with.

Why is it that the masses and the media can't differentiate between real threats and panic?

1) Very few people understand statistics.2) Very few people really even try to be rational about risk3) Riding the wave of panic sells the media

After the London tube and bus bombings some people took to going to work by motorbike. After train accidents some people took to driving. After the 9/11 attacks more people died as a result of the increase in use of road transport (as people were frightened of flying) than died in the actual attacks.

Whew! There is *no* way kids will find a way around this. Problem: SOLVED!/s

I've said it before, but you can't always solve social problems with technological solutions, and here's a perfect example of that. Teenagers need to be informed about the permanence of the internet, the value of trust, and what the consequences of actions are. Beyond that, society needs to be more forgiving when kids screw up (which they can't help but do) and not brand them for life because of early mishaps.

What needs to happen is that managers need to stop grading people on their behavior and focus instead on things related to work. Just because someone had a few drinks once and has some pictures on Facebook with them holding a beer doesn't make them not qualified.

When managers finally pull their head out of their buzzword-laced asses and realize that we are all humans, and that personal and private lives rarely are similar and simply give jobs to people who are qualified, this will be a non-issue.

In Britain so long as you don't turn up to work drunk I don't think anyone cares.

In America do you ever go out with your colleagues after work? If so, do people drink alcohol? It's normal here to all go to the pub if a colleague is leaving, or just on Friday. Typically the boss will pay [hrmagazine.co.uk] for at least some of the drinks.

I've seen my manager, his manager and the CIO drunk (usually when someone's retiring, as that's probably a better excuse for their respective partners). And also all the childless colleagues -

Will it still intercept those messages when kids start inventing new words to have sexual meaning?

Child #1: Yo, man, that party last night was freakin', Smurf!Child #2: You bet your smurf it was!Child #1: Hey, I saw you leaving with Sheila.Child #2: Yeah. Right when we left the party, she started smurfin' me.Child #1: Shut the smurf up! Right in the smurfing parking lot?Child #2: Oh, yeah.Child #1: That's freakin' smurf!Child #2: You betcha.Child #1: Freakin' smurf.

So the summary went from an anti sexting patent, some parental control application, to learning Spanish by changing the phone's default language, and finally to close a way to protect our celebrities from their antics.

I don't tend to complain about the summaries, but man I guess I am going to have to go and read the article now to make sense of this summary.

So the summary went from an anti sexting patent, some parental control application, to learning Spanish by changing the phone's default language, and finally to close a way to protect our celebrities from their antics.

I don't tend to complain about the summaries, but man I guess I am going to have to go and read the article now to make sense of this summary.

Well, I apologize for the apparently incomprehensible summary. I didn't say anything at all about changing the phone's default language. The phone would just ensure that the child is sending or receiving messages with a certain amount of Spanish in them to ensure the child learns Spanish. Basically this patent could be used for censorship and/or replacement. That entails a lot of things and the patent itself alludes to a lot of possibilities. The media jumps on the 'think of the children' point of view

It seems that with some things, people just don't learn. Online chat sites and forum sites, not to mention spam filters, have tried for years and years now to do exactly what Apple is trying to do, but determined people will just obfuscate censored words, use completely different words, euphemisms, or use leet-speak. Combine all the above and they may as well be speaking in Navajo (and I wouldn't put it past them to try that, too). Aside from practical considerations, isn't this just treating the symptom ra

Let people raise their kids. Unless they are some of the mentally ill who are an actual danger to their kids, they will do a better job of it than the government or a corporation. They know their kids better than you or I do and most parents intend at least to do the best for their kids. If they want to censor their kids' communications and monitor it to some extent, I'm fine with that. There is some point you have to teach your kids to have some integrity and to be trustworthy when you can't verify all the

When it came to how I grew up, it was very lax, to say the least. I could go where I wanted, do what I wanted, and I never ended up getting in trouble, ever. No drugs, no nothing. It's when parents try to start controlling every little thing their kids do that they want to start lying and doing the things their parents tell them to do. PROTIP: Let them have some freedom once in a while. If you notice your child starts to become evasive when you ask them questions or just evasive in general, then it's time t

Not to dump on your message per se, but it turns out children are people. They have personalities. Each one is different.

Some children will want more freedom, and will be better off for it. I suspect that many children need strict boundaries, and will benefit from that. Some kids will thrive with a more middle of the road approach.

I had a Chinese Mom and a Caucasian Dad. She was strict as hell, he was a bit more laissez-faire. That worked for me and my sister. I had friends with two Chinese parents, and for

I really don't understand why any discussion of a new technology that might possibly be used to limit children in any way is accompanied by an immediate assumption that only terrible parents would use it. This seems like a very simplistic false choice between total freedom and BOFH-style lockdown.

It seems much more reasonable to me to give children freedom appropriate to their age, but also use tech to limit that freedom where that makes sense. Of course technology is no replacement for supervision or for

Just a quick info on a product that is from a woman in my town here in Norway. I think this has a huge potential and is targeting parents with kids from 7-10 years old.

Bipper.com [bipper.com] is a simple sim-card with a the code included in the sim-card that makes you monitor and select who can call and text your children etc. There is also a code the child can call and then the phone will call persons in a ring until one answers. The location of the phone will also be sent. Since it's all on the sim-card it will work o

Since almost every word in the English language can be used in some sexual reference, I suppose this patent just blocks all text. For example, "I want to go logging up your canyon until you landslide all over my boulders." Now, that is not even cleaver, and I am sure that anyone who really can write will suggest prose that make my slight example seem corny. The point is that such censorship is futile and moronic. However, it does get a lot of press...